Chlorofluorocarbons (Freon or CFC's) have become an environmental problem of major importance. They have been considered to be directly or indirectly responsible for the increase in skin cancer, damage to natural resources, adverse effect on crops and living objects as well as adding to the Greenhouse Effect.
The ozone layer is found in the stratosphere and is responsible for screening out more than 99% of the sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation. CFC's are the prime culprit for the already measurable loss of ozone. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that a 5% reduction in the ozone would cause an additional 940,000 cases annually of non-melanoma skin cancer (a disfiguring but not usually fatal cancer). They have also estimated an additional 30,000 more cases annually of often-fatal melanoma skin cancer. In 1935, the risk of an American developing melanoma was 1 in 1,500; today it is 1 in 120. NASA has calculated (based on Shuttle Missions and Satellite observed data) a 10% reduction of the ozone by the year 2050. This is based on 1987 emission levels. Even more frightening is the fact that 95% of the CFC's released into the atmosphere between 1955 and today are still making their way up to the stratosphere. CFC's (commonly called by their trade name Freons) are also a "Greenhouse Gas". They are 20,000 times more heat absorbant than CO.sub.2 (carbon dioxide).
In areas near coal burning facilities such as power plants a 1% reduction in ozone would increase the production of hydrogen peroxide as much as 80%. Hydrogen peroxide speeds up the formation of sulfuric and nitric acids in the upper atmosphere thus adding to the global acid rain problem.
Increased ultraviolet radiation as a result of ozone loss is also responsible for accelerated degradation of plastics and other polymers, eye cataracts, billions of dollars in food crop damage, aquatic plants that are esssential to ocean food chains and suppression of human and animal immune systems.
On a global scale many countries are aware of this major problem. Many countries have banned all non-essential use of Freon such as styrofoam production and aerosal cans. Our federal government also is aware of the problem. They have recently imposed a tax on Freon that almost doubles the price. This will grow to almost five times that amount by the end of the 1990's . Furthermore, production has been frozen at 1986 levels and will be continually reduced by an additional 50% by the middle of 1998. This was intended to force industry to look for less expensive alternatives as well as being more conservative. Some of the industry seems to feel HCFC's (Halogenated CFC's ) are the answer. However, HCFC's suffer from all the same problems as CFC's but at a slightly reduced rate. Furthermore, implementation of HCFC's would be significantly costly both for the product itself and the complete retooling of the compressor and refrigeration systems. HCFC's seem to be a poor alternative.
A far better alternative is recycling. If a monetary deposit was placed on the Freon inside each system and a kit containing a novel valve and container for removal was provided, Freon could successfully be used and reused without harmful damage to the atmosphere. Furthermore, the average life of a refrigeration system is 7.2 years. The deposit could remain in an interest-bearing bank account that each state and/or federal government could have access to. Each town or municipality could also encounter occasional unclaimed deposits on trash day, further adding revenue.
Freon manufacturers would also profit (thereby eventually saving the consumer money) by having access to inexpensive Freon to recycle rather than having to manufacture it from the raw materials. A recycling program is a quick and inexpensive solution to a very serious problem. Everyone profits from Freon recycling as well as it being beneficial to mankind and preserving our valuable environment.
There have been some attempts to remove and clean Freon from air conditioners before returning it to the system. These prior art systems do not solve the problem of minimizing the escape of Freon to the atmosphere from discarded appliances such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Typical of these prior art systems are the processes disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,237,420 (Mulholland); 3,443,392 (Alexander); 4,458,497 (Kubik) 4,761,961 (Marx).
In Mulholland a system is disclosed which includes a condensing section charged with a refrigerant in an amount in excess of the required system charge in consideration of its maximum interconnecting conduit length. The system disclosed by Mulholland is primarily concerned with maintaining a refrigeration system free of contamination. There is no provision in Mulholland for recycling Freon.
In Alexander above cited, a process for the restoration of burned out refrigeration systems is disclosed. In the Alexander system a burned out hermatic refrigeration system may be restored to use through the use of a counterflow of cleaning refrigerant. Again, there is no teaching in Alexander of steps to avoid the escape of Freon to the atmosphere nor to reusing Freon removed from old discarded appliances.
Kubik U.S. Pat. No. 4,458,497 discloses a method of evacuating an air conditioner by using the air/fuel intake manifold of a gasoline internal combustion engine. Kubik is concerned with the replacement of refrigerants from air conditioners and the removal of the old refrigerant before recharging with a new refrigerant. The main problem to be attended to in this invention, that is, the recycling of Freon or any other refrigerant, is not addressed in Kubik.
Marx U.S. Pat. No. 4,761,961 discloses a system to be used on air conditioners during maintenance and repair operations. In his system, refrigerants need to be decanted from their units by a connective pipe. While Marx is attentive to the system's loss of a refrigerant and its adverse effect on the environment, he makes no suggestions on how to utilize refrigerants from discarded appliances.